Does any of this some familiar? Does this sound like what has been happening in America in the past years? Well, I will disappoint you; this is not America of the 20^th or 21^st century, but America of the 17^th century. Other then a few points, this was what was happening in a period when America was a just a gathering of colonies. This was when Great Britain and the Parliament passed a number of tax acts which would eventually cumulated with what is known as the Townsend Acts.

According to the British Constitution, British subjects could not be taxed without the consent of their representatives in Parliament. Since the colonies had no truly elected members of Parliament, many colonists viewed Parliament's attempt to tax them as a violation of the constitutional doctrine of taxation only by consent. Is this not what is going on in our present Congress, they pass tax laws without the consent of the people? There were some British politicians who countered this argument with the theory of "virtual representation", which maintained that the colonists were in fact represented in Parliament even though they elected no members. Doesn’t our congress currently do the same thing, telling us that they were elected and therefore they do not have to listen to the voters, they will do what THEY think is right. This was briefly debated after the passage of the Sugar Act in 1764. It later became a major point of contention following Parliament's passage of the Stamp Act 1765. Needless to say, the Stamp Act proved to be wildly unpopular in the colonies, compelling Parliament to repeal it the following year. At least, the Parliament may have listen, used some good judgment, and repealed it. However, implicit within the Stamp Act dispute, there was an issue more fundamental than the taxes and the representation, that issue was the question of Parliament’s authority in the colonies. Parliament provided the answer; after repealing the Stamp Act, they immediately passed the Declaratory Act, which stated that Parliament could pass laws for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever” (Knollenberg, Growth, 21–25). Is this not what the federal government does with the “promote the general Welfare” statement from the Preamble? With the passage of the Declaratory Act, the road was opened for the Townshend Acts.

British Empire was deep in debt following the Seven Years' War (1756–1763), the British Parliament decided to start levying new taxes on the British colonies in America. These new taxes, the Townshend Acts, were passed to assist in paying some of the costs of the expanded British Empire. Does this sound like congress passing taxes to pay for various social programs, for example, the outgoing War on Poverty?  Prior to the Townshend Acts, England had used the Trade and Navigation Acts, as a method of taxation to regulate the trade of the empire. Is this not what is happening with the tariffs on goods coming into the United States, particularly on automobile tires (besides paying back the unions)? The Sugar Act of 1764 was the first time Parliament sought to tax the colonies for the specific purpose of raising revenue. Did not congress do the same thing with the cigarette tax for the purpose of funding SCHIP, by taxing a “targeted” group? What about the attempt by congress to tax the bonuses of AIG? As with any taxes, the American colonists did initially object to them for economic reasons, they also recognized that there were constitutional issues involved. As I believe a number of people in America are currently questioning what congress and the president are doing.

Now, there are some reading this, that are probably wondering, what do these various taxes passed by Parliament in the 1760’s have to with what’s going on in America today. There are also maybe some who are wondering why congress and the president should pray to God, we, the People, believe in the United States Constitution. Well, what followed the passage of the Townsend Acts (Acts), is part of America’s history

As with our current congress, Townshend knew that his program would be would be controversial in the colonies, but he argued that, "The superiority of the mother country can at no time be better exerted than now." Is this not the same with our current congress, their superiority and their “we know best for the American people and are going to do what WE want to do.” Even though the Townshend Acts did not create an instant uproar like the Stamp Act had done two years earlier, but before long, opposition to the program had become widespread. Isn’t this what happened after the passage of the Porkulus Bill in 2009.

The first response was a series of twelve essays by John Dickerson which began in December, 1767. In these series of essays, Dickinson argued that there was no difference between "internal" and "external" taxes, and that any taxes imposed on the colonies by Parliament for the sake of raising revenue were unconstitutional. Dickinson warned colonists not to concede to the taxes just because the rates were low, since this would set a dangerous precedent. When the Porkulus bill was passed, did not American people also write letters, emails and blog about this bill? Again, is history repeating itself? Only now it isn’t just about taxes and large government programs, but as with the colonists of early America, it is about true representation.

Another tactic, though not very successful, that the colonist employed were boycotts. The merchants in the colonies, some of them smugglers, organized economic boycotts to put pressure on their British

counterparts to work for repeal of the Townshend Acts. Boston merchants organized the first non-importation agreement, which called for merchants to suspend importation of certain British goods effective 1 January 1769. Eventually, merchants in other northern colonial ports joined the boycott. Some of these included New York City and Philadelphia. Further south, in Virginia, the non-importation effort was organized by George Washington and George Mason. When the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a resolution stating that Parliament had no right to tax Virginians without their consent, needless to say this did not sit well with the governor, Lord Botetourt, who dissolved the Virginia assembly. The members of the House of Burgesses proceeded to continue and went on to meet at Raleigh Tavern and adopted a boycott agreement known as the "Association”. Unfortunately, the non-importation movement was not as effective as promoters had hoped. However, British exports to the colonies did declined by 38 per cent in 1769. The reason was that there were many merchants who did not participate in the boycott. The boycott movement began to fail by 1770, and finally came to an end in 1771. Unfortunately, we, the People, have no real way to boycott our current government, but a boycott of a sort is taking place against the “tentacles” of the government. Currently, good Americans are avoiding the pro Obama media, Government Motors, Chrysler, and some of the other organization that are in “bed” with the administration. But, just like in 1768 – 1769, not all Americans are participating. Of course, for America today, boycotts hurt more Americans then it really hurts the target.

While the boycotts were taking place, a board was seated by the British in Boston. The purpose was to concentrate on strictly enforcing the Acts. The Acts were so unpopular in Boston, that the board requested military assistance. Isn’t this what happened this past summer at the town hall meetings. When conservatives attended to express their views, weren’t SEIU, other unions and of course, ACORN called out to intimidate. Did not violence take place by the “paramilitary” that supports the administration? Is this one of the reasons Obama would want a national security force as he said in 2008, “We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” Does he want to use this security force to ensure Americans “obey” his and congress’ edicts? After all, it can’t happen here; again or can it? In Boston, as the military began to take more control, tensions began to increase. Finally in February, 1770, a teenage boy, Christopher Seider was killed by a British customs employee and the violence escalated resulting in five colonists being killed on March 5, 1770, The Boston Massacre. Ironically, on the same day the Acts were partially repealed. So far, America has been fortunate. But, I wonder how long it will be till someone who supports the administration, listens to the constant rhetoric about how everyone who doesn’t support the administration is racists, rightwing extremists and the other remarks from the media, congress, etc. decides to take violent action. Does not Glenn, Rush and other talk show hosts constantly receive death threats? Is there not death threats directed at the above mentioned posted on the Left Blog sites? Do not certain members of congress and the administration fuel this, maybe not as outright comments, but subtly?

There was one part of the Acts that had not been repealed, the tax on tea. To add more burden to the colonists, Britain passed the Tea Act in 1773. The colonists responded to this act by “throwing” a party, the Boston Tea Party on the night of December 16, 1773. Is this not what happened earlier this year, when the congress continued to laws spending more tax money and putting America deeper in debt? Did not the American people stage Tea Party demonstrations? The British responded in later in 1774, by passing the Coercive Acts. Among the acts was one that shut down Boston's commerce until the British East India Company had been repaid for the destroyed tea. Instead, demanding any repayment, has our government continued to attempt to pass bills that the American people do not want, like Healthcare and Crap and Tax? The colonists responded to the Coercive Acts with additional acts of protest, and by eventually convening the First Continental Congress. This fist congress petitioned the British monarch for repeal of the acts and coordinated colonial resistance to them. Is this not what Americans are doing now, “petitioning” our “monarch” and his minions by emails, snail mails, phone calls and of course the continuation of our own version of the Tea Party. The crisis in the colonies escalated, and eventually set the stage for the American Revolution which began near Boston in 1775. It makes me wonder, where are the patriotism that Boston was known for back when an oppressive government was imposing taxes without representation.

Shouldn’t congress and the administration realize that thanks to the Constitution and the faith that the American people have in that great document that we maybe following the same path of our foundering fathers? Do we not have ample reasons? Shall remember Tarp? The Porkulus bill? How about Healthcare? How many Americans have “fought” to stop passage? Yet, like Parliament under the Monarch, congress continues to push to pass it. Are we heading for a second Revolution? Will it be peaceful? The election of 2010 will tell. If the Revolution does come, it will most likely be quiet, one side will choose the Constitution, the other side will be as the British in the 1760’s exerting their "power".